Zevachim 111

We've all learned Kish, maybe even thought we understood. But now with his trademark depth and clarity and his signature uptempo daffomi style, Repsuri Bournestein uncovers the layers beneath the words, revealing a world of meaning, relevance, and beauty in every line. Where the deraim of the bass medish meets pushup shot. Discover the shear that's redefining how people learn Kumish. Reprly Bournestein's Kishar. Find it on the Lakewood Dafyomi app or wherever this shear is being heard. Today's is and we got four lines from the bad of the last at the end of yesterday's we saw said that not only is someone that etc etc but even someone that does beit somebody like that is going to be as well and we spoke out some raid yesterday we saw the as it relates to today we're going to complete the we'll do the latter part again that you're going to be but really before we see this morning's we need a very little bit of an introduction that is there were two types of that were brought in the bas mikdash one was brought very often as in every day. The other one was born on sukus. The one that was born every day was the one that was born on was the so there was certain certif interestingly is in parl in fact it's the very first para mentioned in the right after the begins with the very next para you're going to throughout his role etc etc says and then there's after that describes specifically the this is not talking about the in fact it's not even clear what the is could be there's a number that holds is only that the says by the musen of the sixth day of so this par of course is talking about the and it's mentioned in we'll see a little bit later in the why but the when it introduces the it prefaces it with the following words and the literal translation of the words in the Torah would suggest that when the were in the mitzvah there was no mitzvah it was a mitzvah it's only then that you're going to have a mitzvah of either way. That is an idea that we will see will very much be the topic of the first part of the if somebody is on if the water was Otherwise, you're not going to be so in the price of this clearly between the anonymous and what the is is also anonymous. It's very unclear. If someone's been asks only if you were because this is so the is going to bring three opinions amongst what exactly the says we saw already in yesterday's d that the based on that it would reason that the would be as And Vigmor is assuming that everybody agrees that there's a share of the question is is that a minimum share or is that also a maximum share? Meaning that's part you can't have less than what about more than is that okay or is that not okay? If somebody was in a more than three of is that going to be kadesh or not? If it's okay to have more than three lug of m it's going to be nadesh. If it's not okay to have more than three of it's not going to be in Scottish in order to be the thing that you were has to be something that was so in the context of it would have to be that was otherwise it's like otherwise it's not if it's not you're not and as a result it's partially not going to be so said, "You know what is the is if somebody was more than three and then he was is or is he and what's the isim a maximum share or is it only a minimum share?" If it's a maximum share then is going to be part cuz being that you're mad more than three lug and it three more than three lug is too much it comes out the kicharis was never mad. it comes that was not as a result if you if however is not a maximum share it's only minimum share so it wasn't Scottish it wasn't Scottish there's no reason they shouldn't be again it's not clear in the literal words of and the that's what they're arguing nothing's clear in terms of what exactly they said thus we have no choice says to make an say that this was what the and says something else. In other words, everybody holds everybody agrees that just like three lug is a minimum share, three is a maximum share as well. And based on that, if somebody is more than three of May, it's not. If it's not, it's technically not. So if you even on it wasn't as a result you should be stating that it could be you would be and that's based on the idea that were brought once the enter there was no cliches being that there was no cliches there was a concept then of that didn't involve a cliches once you find a concept of that doesn't involve a cliches I can tell you that If you were madish more than three lugan the cliches wasn't mad because it's too much is only mad as a but I have precedence that you could be even without if that's the case then I should be as well now what's that whether or not when he brought a carbon on his bum brought but didn't bring that's to another shu this is the long rash we're speaking this out palp It's whether whether or not they brought in the midbar. What's that? The we started with because when the introduces the it says at first glance it sounds like there was no in the midbar was from the stating that there is an opinion that holds that really they did bring in the midbar. What then does it mean when it says it's referring to a carbon that didn't have in the was going to have even on there was going to be a den for the to go ahead and bring the if however you hold like the then there's no anywhere in the bron would bring maybe not What then does the mean when it says the whole mitzvah of meaning if you hold? So what does the mean when it says when you go to you're going to bring the carbon in the midbar? It's talking to the if you carbon then didn't bring. What does that have to do with us? If you hold that the brought in on the because when it says it's talking to the it can't be talking to as a whole because if that's the case so it comes out there is a so where there was that was brought even without so even if you're going to tell me that more than is too much as a result can't be mad it doesn't mean that you're not going to Because there's precedence for such a hot or be it on that's enough to say that you're going to be. Now the truth is that even if the Y brought on the he only brought he didn't bring May. What we're saying then is that just like you find that the on brought even though it was never because there was no it would be true as well and that segus into the third. It could be everybody holds that three luggage more than three log is too much. It could be everybody holds that meaning that the did bring but he only brought he didn't bring it could be still a sh whether or not that would translate into the laws of so maybe theoretically that's something that would be to idea of because even if you did it in a way where it wasn't the big but there's precedence for where's the preced but there's no precedence So do we say if it's true for it's true for as well do we not maybe that's totally in the is that we saw yesterday whether is learned out from it's learned out from it's like is or maybe it's independent it's not even like it's either way very similar so the first was discussing This price is discussing. It has to be again very similar is if you can count the foam that would build up. We're talking about if you pour wine there can be foam on top. Whether that's included in the kdesh that's not included in the kadesh. Are you for the for the or are you not going to be for that whether they brought the time to in other words it's talking about you more than three similar to what we just spoke out regarding the question is is that a problem there is a maximum of but at the same time if this precedence for that doesn't involve theories then it wouldn't bother me that you put more than three lug into the because even though the was I don't need for what's that whether there was what's thatian whether they were carbon midburn the is going to bring this the same exact exchange says the rabbi says so you see clearly there wasn't He says the saying the means that you're going to go on the equivalent of the you're going to bring the maybe the means says the it says It sounds like the we're talking about a carbon that involves the thus it must be that is coming to say you said just the opposite. is something that involves every single bottom line is we have whether they brought or not bottom line one is a derivative of the other is again everything that we've spoken at about that it comes out then if they brought on the is whether or not they brought in the midbar if they brought in the midbar. So what does it mean when it says it must be meaning like said that every would have to bring the because you can't tell me the telling me when you comment there's going to be on the even when they had it bottom line is going back to the original sh whether somebody would be where he was more than even if there's a maximum comes out the if you hold it means that the and there was no so there's precedence for in the same vein you would be if you did it it's exhale so before we go v it's we mentioned that the mitzvah of isn't it's not meaning that's not where the par of is it's mentioned in parl not only is it mentioned in parl it's the very next para after the usually when you learn parl you don't make it past the but the truth is there's more to parl even after the story of the morag not a lot but there are some very important number one you have the mitzvah of the number two the very next par in the is the mitzvah of after that you have the of somebody that's the second Part of the par as it relates to that involves the par and the is mentioned not in par the for all other than is mentioned in par for it's mentioned in parl of course you have the par is in parl is in parl so that's pretty much a synopsis a high level of parl but the very next par after is the par of all the Why was it that immediately after the story of the very next that the guy from was the and all the say the same thing albe it in their own words. I'll read to you from the Ramb says the Raman. It could be the reason that Hashem gave the right then and there was to give them the because at that point the state of the union was very very poor. Everybody was I mean it's very nice that our children are going to be able to go and tear and yen had just gotten a terrible terrible a terrible terrible where said that the aren't going to be able to go into and every year would die in the midbar this was terrible but their children would go into but then the Jews looked at themselves and they said who says How do we know? I mean, we saw everything and we unfortunately didn't live to tell the story. So, how do we know that our children are going to How do we know our children aren't going to do the same? He had to be so what did he do? He gave them a to tell them you're going to go in ter you have nothing to worry about. That's the juxiposition between the it was it was who knows if we're going to make it till the end if we're going to make it to how do we know comes and he gives this was the first right the story of the was predicated it started and right after what do we comes and he says but I'm going to tell you I saw in the last night he brings that used to say over from who used to say over from that why the meaning and all the said that Hashem wanted to give the to give them don't worry it's true it's terrible this was awful but I you had my word you will make it into why There are many mitzvah. So the said that the said it's based on the we all know the says what do you do to someone who's someone that's someone that's morning someone that's having a rough day drink a glass of wine. That's what you do. There's precedence for it. It's so they were they were like the Ramban says. So what did they do? He gave them a glass of wine. He gave them the mitzvah of the mitzvah of fella. This is the marti drinking. I'm joking. But uh but either way, you're going to be going like the holds that because if wasn't then why would somebody for being and the truth is when is mentioned throughout as the one that holds I'll ask you from the following and in this we have a real time discussion between regarding you said his mitzvah It's mean that it's not it would make sense that you shouldn't be told why is it different than why is it different than the that's a whole parish in the he told him that at the very least is an entire is is by definition you're just taking what's left over. So it makes sense that there should be a between bottom line. Now if that is so asked how isn't it what should they have told him it is says that he is from so we're himself is defending his position and he's trying to distinguish between and and he didn't say no I hope is so is one thing as opposed either way he says and he said that the whole is regarding when it comes to the of the brought everybody hold then it's because of It could be that that exchange was discussing it wasn't discussing if it was discussing would have said what's the problem. So there's big issues here with the just reading from the side from the so the problem they have it in our it's broken up into two part name. So then why didn't he tell him that meaning only said his like only by the brought on the then then what's this whole exchange then he's having an exchange about the he never even said by the meaning we're saying you want you want to know didn't say was talking about the but never said by He only said because only then it's and the is then it's even more then then what's he talking about then you should have told no we're talking about I only said you have to say it just so that could be really is that he holds that's why he holds Why then in this is he having a sh of and he's trying to make sense and it's similar to this is this is not why he just say very simple I hold so if it's no different than all the other and it's for that reason he could have said that the reason he did it Right. If somebody does with an in theor and then afterwards he takes that and he's if he did the and then he was potter he's going to be potter he's pottery for the malik that we had earlier in the paral and potter for the as well as we're going to see if Somebody does with an is why cuz you're not supposed to do with an you're supposed to do with an if you did with and then you then you get a Mishna said four two regarding and two regarding the makes sense because so when you're being something that's even though it was you'd say okay but that's that's the bottom line is you're being something that's if you were even according to the whole is but it doesn't matter over here you did is not good is good is is not good so the first part is is rather posh the next was regarding the is also He just made it into an it's not it's not supposed to do with you're not supposed to do with this already. If you did with the and then you were then you're going to be even for the you'll be for the you for the again according to the first line of the first both for the and for the Garra says if you do the back of the envelope so what comes out is meaning what would which is of an that's if you would do it. If you do malik on the afterwards, you would not be for as opposed to if you would do in this case we're using the word lusly as the gumar is going to say which is so if you would do what would make it a if you would do that if you did if you and then mile you would in fact be that line of will be the topic of the rest of the either way says the so we said that when the Gmorra did the back of the envelope arithmetic the if you did it's in the sense that it's it's an oxymoron. But it's a that's the right type of that's if you would do that and then be mid you would be because how can you use the word if it's something that for says I hear not make it either way argued with the so the had two regarding and two regarding and then mention what were the words for anything. So fasten your seat belts. What's been going back on? Which line of the what part of the four that the arguing? Is he going back on the first? What was the four are actually very straightforward again? The first one is why is that's if you and then you and is it on this that said coming to say that just like if you so too if And that then should have said what he said. What was words? No. Let me wait. What he should have said was that just like so. That's not what he said. Maybe what he meant was the reverse. Just like you're not you shouldn't be. But he didn't say that either. What did he say? He said just if this is what means that what he should have said was the opposite meaning was going on the on that again very straightforward when it's the wrong thing is only by it's not that's already but being that so and according to the of the first as well commenting on that let's see was saying just but again that's not what said what say if you also You're saying just the opposite. You're saying that if you're not that maybe what he meant was the last option. Oh, very good. That's what he meant to say that just like works beautifully within words, right? What's the problem? There's one exception to my rule. This is the exception. This can't be. So, we're lost. What exactly did mean? You have no choice but to say there was we have to do some reconstructive surgery to the Mishna. There's no other way. There must be words missing from this Mishna. And is going to make sense in light of the edit says was talking about and then he added the same would be true somebody's not an in this case at night the potter you're going to be the reason is not a if it's not audac So it's not a therefore if you if you take it outside stating that if you as it relates to the laws of doesn't matter if it's by day and night has to be but for that could be even during the night and mean that that could be even at night it's for that reason you would be so said another with regards to the whether you'd be depending on whether the was done was done. We had it with regards to we had it regarding and there's another is possible thus you'll be for as a result you're going to be that was the and he said If you and then you'll be for as well. If you do the same exact you have to be afterwards as well except for meaning now after the said two he said two where there's between whether the was you one was the other one was in both of those cases you'll be in both of those cases had they been. And he says no. With the exception of over there, it doesn't it doesn't cross over. If that's the exception, then where is had a similar ter similar again but what's the case that we're inserting the other talked about it wasn't but rather wasn't also known as if someone does he's going to be there's no as it relates ates to the laws of thus if there was a and then there was like a law says no it doesn't work that way if the after you have to be for the rule what's the exception same exact meaning there was two mentioned that we're distinguishing between if the was as it relates to the that followed it said his rule but he acknowledged it only applies to one of the two it doesn't apply to the second one says the but now that came and he said if someone's that's also the so now there's a bra somewhere where argued Clearly on the mak the says as the if that's the case was probably it's probably must be the same meaning we're grappling over here how to make sense of we found the bracelet that mentions it's probably the same exact that's not said now we're saying something else we're saying just like being so you'll have to change edit exile. So we'll stop here but we have a little bit of raid. So I'm not sure what the story is going to be with tomorrow's daf. So stay tuned. But in the event that this is the last stop for because we're starting over the weekend. So just two as it relates to just in terms of you know the whole are very very with some difficult some technical some but the truth is that just from being the par of it's a fascinating para what's interesting is is that the idea of touches on two of the it touches on and it touches on as well first so mentioned many times during the course of the week and in the past that the relate to in fact in the it's that it was the says that I want you to be careful not to the way explains the bas was also in the mid but not only is the par saying that but it's saying as well. We spoke about this rate earlier in the week. But the bottom line is is that the in addition to being a it has its own but it's also it's a laws of it's related to we said maybe that's why the needs to tell me that it doesn't relate to why would it be know that relates to more than the parish the say because it's related to the says so with that backdrop let's take a few steps back. So the para of the is the second par the first is the that's the and we know that one of the things that was unique about the kipper is that the congodal had to take two and he would bring groolo The one that was that was the that was it was one of the five. It was a it was a carbon like all carbon like all like the other went in on that brings meaning at first glance when you read it sounds a little bit like one of the and the other s in fact didn't know it went al says Don't walk away thinking that the didn't go. Of course it went even though the misleading because it sounds like so I don't know what is but it sounds like it's not of course the was also says you don't have to say that carbon the wasn't a carbon it wasn't brought like a carbon there was no not just that it wasn't even brought in the bd so what was it says inel if you're able to understand the the secret that follows the word you'll understand it and the sight of its name because there's hints to it in the mikra and I'm going to give you a little bit of a hint and here's the hint of the evanzra when you're going to be 33, you're going to understand it. This is the hint. This is the that says for the word says that and presumably others were were very bothered. It sounds like one of these was it wasn't. Yeah, it wasn't. And it's not a big deal. carbon. What is it? It's a wrapped in a enveloped in a side. He said, "I'm not telling you. IT'S A SECRET." But when you're going to be 33, then you're going to know, says the he says, "I can't control myself. I'm going to be to the side." And the Ramban goes and he has an and the abbreviated version goes something like this says and we know it's the it's also the and the Sultan does what he gets paid to do. His job is to be Mkatrick and he stands in front of the co and he does everything in his ability leaves no rocks unturned to try to find a way to be matured and the for that reason need to do something to calm him down. So you know what we do? We give him and that's always the with with right says in it's there's a story with and others that anytime they had a dealing with they try because there's aim it goes with it goes with and that's exactly what we're doing. We're going and we're being we're being laaz is just another way of saying like says and that's what ideas the ideas we're going we're giving him because we want to try to be that he shouldn't be us at this very very crucial time says with this you'll understand many things two of them number one you'll understand why it is that The kind had to make a why to make a why couldn't just take two this is going to be and this is going to be he says if this was going of course that's what he would do every time you bring a this is this is how you start you can't do that with because on SOME LEVEL IT'S YOU'RE NOT BRINGING IT to now we're doing it says but at the end of the day we don't want it to come from us so therefore we do it because the always It's as if it's not coming from us. If it's not coming from us, so therefore it's it's okay. He says you you're going to understand something else. It says says see it doesn't say in that carbon nobody no came over here why do you bring a why you bring no that's something that on some level is and the also because what are they what's unique about them they were that were not brought was this is already that's what come you tell me you DON'T WOR YOU'RE NOT PAGAN worshipers what are you doing what's the all the carbonas that were brought in the temple yeah that I understand but YOU BRING THIS IS ON YOU BEING THAT'S THE THAT'S THE of the says the rabban and on some level there's a little bit of validity to the argument But where it's completely fluid is with following the command of when you're doing it on your own. But when says take this carbon and serve it up to who? Serve it up to Hashem. That's when it's okay. It says Ramban that the truth is it's in the word because who's he brings from? That's as it's you find the word in relation to all things. And that's why it was a Now let's go back to Dean Ezra says Dean Ezra says Dean Ezra that you want to understand the that's the hint. If you count 33 from the And this would be the first count from there 33. You know what the 33rd is going to be? fellow. It's that the says that's the it's the whole par is predicated on it's shouldn't bring who's the THAT'S THERE'S A REM TO IT SAYS 33 from now go count 33 and you're going to know exactly what's going on the is going it's related to that but one thing is half of a fellow you want to know the connection between you have the par and the very next partial I'm sorry you have the parip and the very next par is the par this is the par it's number one there's an idea over here in the you have to know one second you're right I'm allowing it to ever do it again. And not just that, the whole idea of immediately meaning you can walk away from any person that really understands and say I hear this place for it. I mean, you know, right? I mean, that's what it sounds like. No, that's immediately afterwards that even though there's a par of the but you have to realize it's an exception. This is from the but in terms of ordinarily somebody does he's going to be and this is that we need immediately after the was the that's the first the second is in the so says that if somebody is going to an animal This person will be considered this person is you want to know why? Because he's like a he's like a why is he is a murderer. He didn't kill anybody. says, "So, but why is he where's in the times of you weren't allowed to eat was only allowed to eat paras, right? That was the diet that had to follow religiously. Only fruit as the says until all the animals survived the marble and it was then that the were allowed to eat animals. They were allowed to eat animals. It's being that the animals survived the somehow now became fear game. Okay. But says if somebody now she's an animal but he doesn't do it properly, he doesn't follow the rules, he does it in his own way. such a person is eating something that he really was supposed to eat cuz the whole was if you the animal in the proper way. But if you're going to go ahead now and you're going to sh it in an improper way this is the punch line we're going to go back to the original that and then say that's one line and leaves us wondering why in the world why should that be the case why should a be like this the rest of the story because really once upon a time you weren't allowed to shift animals in the times of other he was only allowed to eat right everyone knows the eights that he wasn't allowed to eat from but we don't realize is that was also a only from this you're allowed to eat he wasn't allowed to eat from anything else he wasn't allowed to eat from anything else after the everything else became but it was only of you do it properly but once you cross the lines and you don't do it in the right way at that point that two becomes awesome. I'm going to tell you an interesting that is the fact that wasn't allowed to eat and it became after is not that's it's a in fact one of the first right after leaves says tells he says I want you to know that all are going to fear you. And then he says that everything that's alive you're allowed to eat. You could eat it just like you could eat grass. What's the beer? The beer is that until now it was only was allowed to eat. That's going back to the times of Marish. But now comes and he tells him that no then he stipulates a few laws and tips later. The Tory says you should know you're not allowed to kill a person. And the Rabban is very bothered. He says what's this between this then who previously was not allowed to eat meat is now suddenly allowed to eat meat and says but either way but feed this so it's half of a fellow because this is to eat a wasn't just an iss Like Rashi says and like the say so until now was two things. It was somebody that kills a person and somebody that kills an animal. Now the Torah went ahead and the says because all the now you're allowed to an animal but at the same time it doesn't mean there's no that part of is still GOING TO APPLY. IT'S ONLY the first part that's going to be gone, but the second part is is still going to be in place. A fascinating idea. It's an unbelievable idea. It's a concept of shacking an animal is like it's like shacking a there you go. You want to mart animal rights? I mean, this is it. But it's unbelievable. But there's this idea that if somebody goes and and he kills an animal and he's killing it could be on some level there's an element you're touching on you're touching the seems to say I mean what came to mind is the famous truth of the night maybe the most famous where he was asked to sha by a grace who wanted to know if it's okay for him to hunt. So he owned acres and acres of property and the way the brings it he had the whole animal kingdom in his in his backyard and he wanted to go hunting just because it's enjoying and it was something they wanted to know and the view that goes and first he discusses then he discusses then he discusses you're putting your life it's it's a dangerous game right so is that something that you're allowed to do then he talks about the idea of not doing If somebody put himself in a massive the punchline of the is the the following he says the whole shil to me is is is a bigish he says you're hunting he says let's look in the who hunted in the he says I found two hunters and this is the part they quoting yeshiva and he goes on to to talk about that it's it's not bottom line is that's that's that that's the punch line right I'll tell you something else interesting another punch line says he writes them at the end he says the truth is the whole shil is so silly and and really I shouldn't have answered this shil he says he was a clearly says it several times he was also apparently was a good person so he says if not for the fact that you were a great I would never answer this I know you have such a good reputation. I have to watch with all my This is so dramatic because I know that it's possible that says, "The reason I'm doing this is I want to protect you because if you're going to go ahead and you're going to hunt, people are going to hear about it. They're going to talk about it and the next thing you know, your family is going to lose its pristine reputation. So I feel that I have to protect your reputation. You're I'm sure he was a big and must have been very of and as a result he felt that he wanted to make sure that he got this. This is a trua that this is this. So we all benefited from this truva. But he just said he wasn't really going to write it. He was writing it to protect this person. And he said cuz I know there's people that hate you. Why would people hate him? Unbelievable. But the bottom line is is that is the truth of this adds a wrinkle to it. So goes through every single element and and permutation of what the issue would be to go hunting for pleasure. Maybe this Rainbow Bakio is a little bit of a